Turkish Adaptation of the School Mindfulness Scale (M-Scale): A Construct Validity and Reliability Study

Yıl 2019, , 250 - 270, 22.05.2019

Hilal Büyükgöze , Murat Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.454945

Cited By: 1

Öz

This
study aimed to adapt the School Mindfulness Scale (M-Scale), developed by Hoy,
Gage and Tarter (2004), into Turkish culture. A total of 215 teachers from 17
primary and middle schools located in Ankara participated in the study. First,
some statistical assumptions were checked in the M-Scale data set, then
validity and reliability studies were conducted. The construct validity of the
scale was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA model validated
the two-factor construct of the M-Scale. Within the reliability and
item-analysis measures, item-total correlations, split-half test reliability,
Cronbach’s alpha, Guttman lambda, stratified alpha, Armor’s theta, McDonald’s
omega coefficients were calculated, and upper 27%-lower 27% group mean
differences were examined by independent groups t test. The M-Scale was found to have a moderate level of item
discrimination among its 14 items. The Crobach’s alpha value was calculated to
be .88 for the overall M-Scale, .83 for the
teacher mindfulness factor, and .78 for the
principal mindfulness factor. The construct validation and reliability
analyses indicated that the M-Scale appears to have adequate psychometric
properties, and a valid and reliable data collection tool in measuring school
mindfulness construct within Turkish culture. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

school mindfulness, teacher mindfulness, principal mindfulness, validity, reliability, scale adaptation

Okul Farkındalığı Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu
araştırmada, Hoy, Gage ve Tarter’ın (2004) geliştirdiği ‘Okul Farkındalığı
Ölçeği-OFÖ’nün Türk kültürüne uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmaya, Ankara’da
bulunan 17 ilkokul ve ortaokulda görev yapmakta olan 215 öğretmen katılmıştır.
OFÖ’ye ait veri seti çeşitli varsayımlar açısından incelendikten sonra geçerlik
ve güvenirlik çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği
doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. DFA ile OFÖ’nün öğretmen farkındalığı ve müdür farkındalığından oluşan iki
faktörlü yapısı doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik ve madde analizi çalışmaları
kapsamında madde-toplam korelasyonları, iki-yarı test güvenirliği, Cronbach
alfa, Guttman lambda, tabakalı alfa, Armor teta, McDonald omega ve alt %27-üst
%27lik grup ortalama farkları incelenmiştir. OFÖ’de yer alan 14 maddenin madde
ayırtediciliklerinin iyi düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin tamamına
ilişkin iç tutarlık katsayısının .88 olduğu ve boyutlarına ilişkin katsayıların
ise sırasıyla .83 ve .78 olduğu saptanmıştır. Gerçekleştirilen geçerlik ve
güvenirlik analizleri, OFÖ’nün okul farkındalığı yapısının Türk kültüründe
ölçülmesi için yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip, geçerli ve güvenilir bir
ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

okul farkındalığı, öğretmen farkındalığı, müdür farkındalığı, geçerlik, güvenirlik, ölçek uyarlama

Kaynakça

• Armor, D. J. (1973). Theta reliability and factor scaling. Sociological Methodology, 5, 17-50.
• Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 139-161. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0
• Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 226-244. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2016.1147608
• Benton, T. (Temmuz, 2013). An empirical assessment of Guttman’s Lambda 4 reliability coefficient. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Arnhem.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Cronbach, L. J., Schönemann, P., & McKie, D. (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(2), 291-312. doi: 10.1177/001316446502500201
• Easton, G. S., & McCulloch, R. E. (1990). A multivariate generalization of quantile-quantile plots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(410), 376-386.
• Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54-70. doi: 10.2307/30040689
• Gage, C. Q. (2003). The meaning and measure of school mindfulness: An exploratory analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
• Gagné, P., & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(1), 65-83. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_5
• George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
• Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2000). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing, Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. doi: 10.1177/0013161X96032001002
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22, 1-27. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2010.536322
• Hallinger, P., & Huber, S. (2012). School leadership that makes a difference: International perspectives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 359-367. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2012.681508
• Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding out what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116. doi: 10.1108/09578239610148296
• Ham, S., Duyar, I., & Gumus, S. (2015). Agreement of self-other perceptions matters: Analyzing the effectiveness of principal leadership through multi-source assessment. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 225-246. doi: 10.1177/0004944115603373
• Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality (Working Paper No. 11154). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154
• Heck, R. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432. doi: 10.1177/0013161X07306452
• Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257-281. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2014.885452
• Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87-109. doi: 10.1108/09578230310457457
• Hoy, W. K. (2010). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the school workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2), 149-168. doi: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4
• Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Theoretical and empirical foundations of mindful schools. In W. K. Hoy and C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement. Greenwich, CN; Information Age.
• Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236-255. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04273844
• Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.
• Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 336-359.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (8th ed.). Boston, NY: McGraw Hill.
• Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 260-279. doi: 10.1177/0013161X90026003004
• Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). London, UK: SAGE.
• Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective schools: A mixed-method application of Hoy’s M-scale. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(3), 316-335. doi: 10.1177/1741143212474802
• Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171-207). NY: Routledge.
• Ko, J. Y. C., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. D. (2012). Exploring school improvement in Hong Kong secondary schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(2), 216-234. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.664474
• Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
• MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M., & Sugawara, H. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
• MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193-210. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
• McCowan, R. J., & McCowan, S. C. (1999). Item analysis for criterion-referenced tests. Buffalo, NY: CDHS, SUNY.
• Myers, N. D., Ahn, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: A Monte Carlo approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 412-423.
• Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Cinarbas, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188-219. doi: 10.1177/0011000007305384
• Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2012). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 155-190. doi: 10.1007/s10833-011-9177-7
• Pinck, A. S., & Sonnentag, S. (2017). Leader mindfulness and employee well-being: The mediating role of transformational leadership. Mindfulness. doi: 10.1007/s12671-017-0828-5
• Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(4), 485-527. doi: 10.1177/0011000099274002
• Rae, G. (2007). A note on using stratified alpha to estimate the composite reliability of a test composed of interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 177-184. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.177
• R Core Team (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org.
• Sapnas, K. G. (2004). Determining adequate sample size. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(1), 3-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.t01-4-04003.x
• Scarbrough, C. S. (2005). Aspects of organizational mindfulness and dimensions of faculty trust: Social processes in elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonia, Texas, USA.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. NY: Falmer Press.
• Thomas, T. S. (2017). Pupil control ideology and mindfulness: A high school study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.
• Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cinninnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
• Uline, C. L., Miller, D. M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). School effectiveness: The underlying dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 462-483.
• Watts, D. M. (2009). Enabling school structure, mindfulness, and teacher empowerment: Test of a theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.
• Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organizational Science, 17(4), 514-525. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0196
• Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1990). Educational measurement and testing (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Zijlmans, E. A. O., Tijmstra, J., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2017). Item-score reliability in empirical-data sets and its relationship with other item indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0013164417728358
• Zinbarg, R., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133. doi: 10.1007/s11336-0974-7